September 9, 2026
The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for December 9, 2026, in an important land use case that could significantly affect when municipalities may be sued in federal court over zoning decisions involving religious exercise and other First Amendment rights.
Traditionally, a municipality must be allowed the opportunity to reach a “final decision” before a dissatisfied zoning applicant can bring an as-applied challenge in federal court to contest a local zoning matter. In Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, No. 25-965, the Supreme Court will decide whether that rule should continue to apply when a property owner claims that municipal action has already chilled the exercise of First Amendment rights.
The issue is important for municipalities because the finality doctrine ordinarily gives local zoning authorities an opportunity to interpret and apply their own ordinances, develop a factual record, and determine whether relief should be granted before a federal court intervenes. A ruling limiting that requirement in First Amendment cases could allow property owners to bring constitutional lawsuits based on preliminary municipal communications or enforcement actions before the local zoning process has run its course.
Background
Daniel Grand is an Orthodox Jewish resident of University Heights, Ohio. His religious practice includes praying with a minyan, a group of at least ten men. In January 2021, Grand invited approximately a dozen neighbors to Sabbath prayer gatherings at his home.
After a neighbor notified the City, the City’s Law Director sent Grand a cease-and-desist letter stating that his property was in a single-family residential zoning district and that use of the property as a place of religious assembly was not permitted without zoning approval. The letter warned that violations of the City’s ordinances could result in code citations. Grand cancelled a scheduled prayer gathering and, the following day, applied for a special use permit.
Under the University Heights zoning ordinance, houses of worship are permitted in the applicable residential district, but only as a special use. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Grand’s application for a special use permit. During the process, questions arose among Commission members as to whether Grand’s proposed small prayer gatherings actually constituted a “house of worship” at all, and, if not, then no special use permit would be required. Based on the Commission member comments, but before the Commission could resolve that issue or act on the application, Grand withdrew the application, stating that he was not operating a house of worship as defined by the zoning ordinance. The Commission therefore never approved or denied the requested special use.
Grand subsequently sued the City, its Mayor, Law Director, and a Planning Commission member, asserting claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and other federal and state laws.
The Sixth Circuit Upholds the City’s Position
The federal district court dismissed Grand’s principal constitutional and RLUIPA claims as unripe because there was no final action or decision made by the local government, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed in November 2025.
The Sixth Circuit relied on the longstanding “finality” requirement applicable to land use litigation. Under that doctrine, an as-applied challenge to a zoning regulation ordinarily is not ready for federal judicial review until the governmental body responsible for applying the ordinance has reached a sufficiently definite position regarding how the regulation applies to the property. The court explained that this requirement allows land use decisions to begin with locally accountable governmental bodies, and it prevents federal courts from reviewing a regulatory dispute before they know what the municipality has actually decided.
The Sixth Circuit concluded that no final decision existed in Grand’s case. It specifically rejected Grand’s contention that the Law Director’s cease-and-desist letter itself constituted a final zoning decision because, as observed by the Sixth Circuit, the Law Director was not the municipal body authorized to issue a definitive interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
What the Supreme Court Will and Will Not Decide
It is important to recognize the precise issue that is before the Supreme Court and the issues that are not.
The Court is not deciding whether University Heights violated Grand’s religious liberty rights by regulating his prayer gatherings. Nor is the Court being asked simply to decide whether municipalities may require zoning approval for houses of worship in residential districts. And, finally, the Court is not being asked to interpret the City of University Heights zoning code to determine whether small prayer gatherings constitute a house of worship.
Instead, the threshold issue is when a federal lawsuit may begin.
Grand argues that the case should not be treated merely as an ordinary challenge to the application of a zoning ordinance. He contends that the cease-and-desist letter and subsequent statements by municipal officials caused him to stop engaging in constitutionally protected religious activity. Grand says that a credible governmental threat that causes a person to refrain from protected speech, assembly, or religious exercise may itself constitute a present constitutional injury.
If the Supreme Court affirms the Sixth Circuit’s approach, municipalities generally will continue to have an opportunity to complete their zoning processes and establish a definitive interpretation or application of their ordinances before many as-applied First Amendment and RLUIPA claims can proceed in federal court.
On the other hand, if the Court accepts Grand’s argument, the consequences could be broader. A cease-and-desist letter, warning, enforcement communication, or statement by a municipal official arguably could generate an immediately ripe federal constitutional claim if the plaintiff alleges that the governmental action caused the plaintiff to refrain from constitutionally protected activity, even though the municipality’s authorized zoning body has not yet made a final decision.
That distinction could substantially affect local zoning administration.
The National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, International Municipal Lawyers Association, International City/County Management Association, and Local Government Legal Center have filed an amicus brief addressing the importance of the finality doctrine to local governments and supporting the position of the City of University Heights.
What Comes Next
While it is always difficult to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case, given the many Supreme Court cases that have affirmed the ripeness doctrine in the context of local zoning decisions, it is hard to believe that the Court agreed to hear this case simply to reaffirm that line of cases.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for December 9, 2026.
We will continue to monitor Grand v. City of University Heights and will provide an update following oral argument and when the Supreme Court issues its decision. The eventual ruling could provide important guidance not only for religious land use cases but also for zoning and permitting matters involving speech, assembly, and other constitutionally protected conduct.
Please contact Peter Friedman or any Elrod Friedman LLP attorney with questions about this important case.